jeff: E-Cat Replication Attempt

Quote from jeff

The Li is solid, metallic and is stored under mineral oil. Even under oil it develops a black oxide coating. However, the oxide layer is thin and is easily scraped off prior to loading the Li into the SS capsule.

Jeff

@jeff
Are you at the point yet of trying a pulsed high voltage reactor approach as has been done by DGT and mizuno?

Quote from jeff

I have seen at least two questions regarding the possibility of water vapor in the LENR apparatus previously described. There should be very little since the hydrogen generator I'm using has an in-line dehydrator cartridge and guarantees < 1 ppm water vapor in the hydrogen as long as the dehydrator cartridge is not exhausted. For details see Parker Balston hydrogen generators.

Before adding hydrogen the cell is heated to 350C under continuous vacuum pumping, so there should not be much residual water. If there is any it will quickly react with the Li producing LiOH.

Jeff

@jeff
If an iron pipe is used in the structure of the reactor, the iron will absorb all oxygen content from H2O and CO2 at high temperatures. If iron is used, I contend that LiOH will not form in preference to iron oxide.

Quote from jeff

Today the power MOSFETs arrived, and I am now able to apply pulsed power to the cell. The useful maximum pulse frequency is limited by the inductance in the heater coil, which for this particular heater is ~0.85 uH, yielding an R-L time constant of approximately 1 usec. So the sum of the rise and fall times would be several usec meaning that the max chopping frequency is ~200 KHz. I'm using a relatively low chopping frequency of 20 KHz with a 75% duty cycle. Power is adjusted by setting the DC voltage into the chopper. From previous runs with the same heater coil, run under DC conditions, I measured I and V to 0.1% and from that calculated the coil resistance at any given temperature. Using this data one can obtain a precise value for R. That value, the chopper duty cycle, and DC voltage permit an accurate computation of power for the pulsed supply into the heater coil.

@jeff

I contend that it is more efficient to produce a long high voltage spark inside the reactor tube that passes through the fuel package. The spark will produce a full range of EMF stimulation including heat and UV. As used in Holmlid’s reactor, iron oxide powder, also powdered graphite powder is used to supply a crystal layered template for the formation of Rydberg matter. This material is mixed with the other powdered material by mortar and pestle grinding. LiHCO3 50% KHCO3 50%: this eutectic salt mix will liquefy at about 500C after hydrogen release. Potassium from this salt will dope the iron oxide powder. Lithium Aluminum Hydride - this salt provide hydrogen, lithium and aluminum to the reaction. And last but not least, 5 micron nickel powder.

As used in Holmlid’s reactor, 1 gram 99.996% Iridium Ir Metal Powder - $23.64. Any metal powder in the platinum family can be used. The six platinum-group metals are ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. Iridium is preferred because of the results produced in the Holmlid experiment.

When combined with graphite powder, potassium, lithium, and UV light, this produces Rydberg Hydrogen Matter.

The fuel bundle should be held in a nickel foam as done by Defkalion. The spark passing down the axis of the pipe should pass through the center of the fuel bundle(nickel foam). The fuel bundle should be centered in the center of the iron pipe.

A nickel foil should cover the inside surface of the iron pipe to condense the ionized iridium, carbon , etc and keep the iron open to absorb oxygen.

Two screw-on and hydrogen tight sealed iron pipe caps that hold spark plugs with iridium tips produce the high voltage spark.

Why not a Defkalion replication?

@jeff

A more sensitive way to tell if the LENR reaction gains traction in a experiment might be to look for particle tracks on photo enlargement paper.

After an experiment is complete, the ash from the experiment could be tested for particle activity by placing the ash on a piece of paper covering the photo enlargement paper and let set in a dark place for a day or two.

After the photo process proceeds for a day or two, then develop the photo enlargement paper an check for particle tracks that are coming out of the ash with a microscope.

The ash could also be placed on a piece of clear hard plastic in the same way and develop the plastic with a etching chemical(sodium hydroxide).

Another way to get a more sensitive look at the LENR reaction other than using excess heat is to use a particle track detector: a cloud chamber. Once again, place the ash from the completed LENR experiment and look for particle tracts. Paintelli has done this and has seen 6 MeV protons,

How to build a cloud chamber

John Fisher found that he could increase the detection of particles in a CR-39 plastic particle detection strip by a factor of 7 when he used a fan to blow the particles toward the detector placed 2 meters away from his experiment.

This technique could be used to check for particles that are coming from your experiment. The cloud chamber could be placed meters from your experiment and placed in the path of a fan blowing air heated by your experiment. The same particles that were seen by John Fisher could show up in your cloud chamber.

Quote

John Fisher found that he could increase the detection of particles in a CR-39 plastic particle detection strip by a factor of 7 when he used a fan to blow the particles toward the detector placed 2 meters away from his experiment.This technique could be used to check for particles that are coming from your experiment. The cloud chamber could be placed meters from your experiment and placed in the path of a fan blowing air heated by your experiment. The same particles that were seen by John Fisher could show up in your cloud chamber.

I don't doubt these two statements. But I see this suggestion as poor experimental methodology.

It increases the chances of error by introducing a new variable. If you wanted to go down this route the minimum you would need would be to run a control (as close as possible to the real thing but without whatever you think causes the LENR) with the fan off, and on, and note differences in tracks. You'd need to do this for long enough to make sure the results were statistically significant.

Much better prospects for nailing down these effects come from better and more sophisticated differential controls for different aspects, so you can see which apparent correlations between output and conditions are extraneous.

A fan "Blowing" energetic particles two meters to a detector????

Haha, the joke of the day

"CR-39 detectors are ideal for detecting particles in LENR experiments because we can put them right inside the cell where the placement of electronics would otherwise be highly impractical,”

"In one notable test, University of Minnesota physicist Richard Oriani and his partner, John Fisher, suspended CR-39 detectors 1.5 cm above and below nickel and palladium cathodes. [11] Although their cell design and experimental method differed sharply from those of the SPAWAR group's, the detectors caught particles that Oriani and Fisher calculated to be traveling at energies of two mega-electron volts, a force liberated only through nuclear reactions.

A five-MeV particle will travel less than half a millimeter in the liquid environment of a LENR cell. The 1.5-cm distance “was the closest that Oriani and Fisher could place the detectors [to the palladium cathode] without impeding the uniform loading” of deuterons, Mosier-Boss explained.

She said that was not close enough to record most of the nuclear particles flying from the cathode.

“In our experiments, the co-deposition reaction was performed with the cathode wire wrapped around the CR-39 detector,“ she added.

“Oriani and Fisher reported charged particle track densities between 1.5 and 38 tracks per square millimeter; their controls yielded densities of 0.5 to 5.4 tracks per square millimeter," Mosier-Boss said. [12]"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrivitSextraordin.pdf

Throughout history, philosophers, teachers and religious leaders have used stories and parables to help us understand intangible, often complex, concepts. One of my favorites is the Indian parable of the elephant and the blind men.
It runs roughly like this: six blind men were asked by the king to describe an elephant after being allowed to touch just one part of the animal.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says it is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says it is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a rug; the one who feels the elephant’s side insists is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says it is like a spear.

This lack of perspective in LENR data gathering is at the root of the problems at understanding LENR. There have been at least a dozen ways to look at LENR experimental results and more are being invented every day. Each experimenter has his own way at looking at the LENR elephant but no one has seen LENR in its totality.

Ed Storms who is arguably the best scientist among us looks only at the subset of experiments in LENR that support his experimental perspective on LENR. He ignores the other experimental results because these results are produced by processes that he is uncomfortable at performing.

Piantelli looks at what he sees in the cloud chamber and molds his theories around those experimental perspectives.

Holmlid tells us to look for muons and mesons so he can drag us toward his ideas about Rydberg matter.

The Lugano testers looked at transmutation in a way few if any of the other experiments can match to derive how they view LENR. Even Rossi looks at those results anew as inspiration for the development of the E-Cat X.

John Fisher uses CR-39 particle detectors to come up with his polyneutron theory.

The list of these LENR blind men increases by the dozens and yet there is a question that they all have: why is LENR caused by so many things. No one has stepped back and looked at the entire LENR animal to get the true perspective at what LENR is.

The more ways that we can use to look at the LENR elephant, the better view that we will get at understanding what LENR is. The detection of excess heat is not enough, far from it. The stature and the value that an experimentalist brings to the LENR effort is proportional to the number of ways he can look at what LENR is doing. Just as is true in software development, the program that is under test will only be as good as the power of the debug tools brought to bear against the complexity of its operation.

Axil,
The Defkalion device never showed excess. The Papp engine could not be reproduced either by the Rohner brothers or a very good experimenter Russ Gries. What I don't understand very honestly is why you use them as almost de facto references, they don't seem to add anything useful by way of theory or results.

On another note, you really need to get together your numerous writings as an AUT (Axils Unified Theory). Since you always provide references it would be a good read. I hope you are doing something like this.

Quote from oystla

A fan &quot;Blowing&quot; energetic particles two meters to a detector????

Haha, the joke of the day <img src="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />

&quot;CR-39 detectors are ideal for detecting particles in LENR experiments because we can put them right inside the cell where the placement of electronics would…

Yes, but if you want to pick up more background counts, because your experiment does not give you enough, fans do quite well.

Thomas,

and what paper described using fans?

i'm still laughing

Quote from oystla

Thomas,

and what paper described using fans?

i'm still laughing

http://www.fondazionefrisone.i…/FisherJradiationprod.pdf

Quote

FIGURE 4. Influence of air flow on track density. The experiment consisted of 7 consecutive 2-day runs during which the electrolysis cell remained on. In each run 2 or 3 chips were placed either 3 or 80 cm from the cell, and a fan directed at the chips was either on or off. Track density in excess of background is an order of magnitude greater when the fan is on compared with when it is off, independent of the separation of the chips and the cell. Although the current of air from the fan exceeds that from various currents of room air and of convection currents from the warm cell in a closed ice chest, it is necessary to consider the influences of these smaller currents. They may be sufficiently large that if unrecognized and uncontrolled they could mask the experimental signals being sought. In the ice chest a stable circulating flow of air can be maintained by the ~1 W power of the electrolysis cell. Air warmed by the cell will rise, spread laterally, cool, descend, and flow back toward the cell where it again becomes heated. There will be a region of stagnation close to the cell below the bottom of the column of warm electrolyte, in which the air velocity will be small and in consequence the density of new tracks will be small. The velocity will be a maximum at a distance from the cell comparable with the dimensions of the column of electrolyte, at which distance the density of new tracks will also be a maximum. Beyond this distance air velocity and track density will decline to a background level. For a weak or dead cell this may provide an interpretation of the dashed curve in Fig. 3.

Axil, thank's for the link.

And now I understand wha Fisher wanted to check: effect of convection on background measurement on CR39 detector. That is: If CR39 detector where placed in air above F&P cells.

By using a fan the background Count went up considerably. So; the fan was not supposed to blow energetic particles fra the active cell towards CR39, as my impression was from your comment.

Ref.
"Although the current of air from the fan exceeds that from various currents of room air and of convection currents from the warm cell in a closed ice chest, it is necessary to consider the influences of these smaller currents. They may be sufficiently large that if unrecognized and uncontrolled they could mask the experimental signals being sought. "

Quote from oystla

Axil, thank's for the link.

And now I understand wha Fisher wanted to check: effect of convection on background measurement on CR39 detector. That is: If CR39 detector where placed in air above F&amp;P cells.

By using a fan the background Count went up…

This is a correct admission that in this case the expected results are of the same order as background noise - and it is very proper to make such checks. So I'm agog waiting on the other thread for Oystla's "killer paper" showing convincing CR-39 evidence - or of course convincing something else if that is better.

And Thomas, here you see LENR scientists Capable of critical thinking.

if CR39 is used in air, Radon is of course a factor to consider. I prefer the tests where CR39 have been strapped directly to the electrodes in the electrolyte.

Quote from oystla

And Thomas, here you see LENR scientists Capable of critical thinking.

if CR39 is used in air, Radon is of course a factor to consider. I prefer the tests where CR39 have been strapped directly to the electrodes in the electrolyte.

I don't see science as a tribal war. No doubt there are many LENR scientists capable of critical thinking - and the more they do it the better off they will be, so I applaud this.

And Thomas,

Regarding your need of a single "killer paper". I think it is a misconception.

Scientific papers are normally based on previous work ( haha, you know - to make some progress ! ;-)... )

That means you may end critizising elements in a paper (and discarding the paper), that have allready been Checked, tested and documented in previous papers.